Are you doing Post processing or using your images straight out of your camera?

[MeowZzz]

If it is wildlife, and in color, then generally a jpeg + raw.
For the rest, I'll often just go with jpeg.
The A9 jpegs in monochrome I really dig. They're so much nicer than my other cameras, and I have no idea why, like, even at ISO 25,600 they look acceptable (to me).
I don't like the A7iv jpegs all that much, and so shoot raw nearly exclusively, and then edit later in C1.

 

[evacguy]

I shoot both. The main reason is that it's easier (for me) to review and cull using the jpegs. The camera's jpeg efforts are typically trashed once I'm done processing. Once in a great while I'll post a jpeg, but even then, it's had some minimum amount of processing.

Another question is, who is using HEIF? I've thought about looking for a free HEIF editor just to compare to jpegs and see if there's any magic, but I've never gotten around to it.

Me too.

 

[evacguy]

I've since changed to RAW only. jpeg just takes up space on the card and computer, it's one more file to delete, and takes longer to upload when I have a couple thousand images. Since it's easy to find free programs to decode RAW for fast viewing these days I've pretty much stopped jpegs.

I like the jpegs as it's easier for me to select the keepers. I delete the jpegs once I've made my selection. Also, as others have said, also useful when I need to pass on an image very quickly.

 

[Slug]

For posting on line or for Power Point presentations, which is most of what I do, I post process the JPEGs the camera produces. It's amazing what can be got out of a high resolution JPEG and so much quicker and easy to handle.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I shoot RAW (Uncompressed) and edit my images afterwards. Some need minimal editing, others may need a little more time and attention, and I have much, much more control over the process than I would if I simply shot JPG only. In simply going with whatever the camera has chosen to do, one loses the ability to work with an image to make it really shine, make it outstanding rather than just "a nice image.". I also find that shooting in RAW gives me more flexibility to correct what could have been a serious error or to have fun and get creative during the editing process, too.

In some situations, such as shooting wildlife, it is important to ensure that one has a lot of details right, such as feathers and fur, and sometimes simply adjusting the exposure isn't enough. Occasionally, shooting in JPG can result in oversharpened or insufficiently sharp images. Another example would be in dealing with an animal or a bird with dark eyes. Since it is particularly important to have them in focus and (when possible) also visible to the viewer, at times it is necessary to do a bit of lightening of the eyes during the editing phase, either by working with the shadows and highlights, lifting the shadows or by "dodging" (lightening) the area to bring the eye into greater visibility. I find that I need to do that from time to time when shooting Canada Geese, who have dark eyes and dark feathers surrounding them, which can create a dark void, depending upon the lighting situation and the angle at which I capture the bird's head and face. Ideally I get a catchlight in the eye, which solves the problem, but I'm not always that lucky.

Shooting in RAW also makes it much easier to deal with problematic exposure or white balance. This used to be an issue more with shooting on a DSLR with OVF because it would not become immediately apparent that one needed to adjust the white balance settings. A friend shot a bunch of images at an outdoor event and in the excitement of everything didn't take time to "chimp" right then, only looked at his images in the computer after he got home.... By then it was too late to do anything about his error of shooting everything using "fluorescent" as the white balance setting, which apparently he had done on his previous shoot at an indoor office setting. Oops!!! Since he shot in RAW, though, no big deal to adjust the white balance setting in the computer during the editing process and his images were saved.

Back quite a few years ago when I first started shooting RAW, under the guidance and encouragement of a friend, I was nervous about the whole idea, but now I can't imagine NOT using this valuable tool in the digital photography bag of resources.

I noticed in your signature that you are shooting an A1 and an A7RV (same as me).

I'd suggest you consider shooting RAW-L (lossless compressed large RAW) instead of uncompressed RAW now. The lossless compression algorithm is like ZIP - you get back every bit that went into the file, exactly the same. So you only use about 60% of the card space and disk space, but you have the confidence that you have every single bit that your camera captured.

Then again, maybe you were using an A7RIV back when you made this post - the A7RV only arrived November/December The A7RIV doesn't support lossless compression.

 

[evacguy]

I noticed in your signature that you are shooting an A1 and an A7RV (same as me).

I'd suggest you consider shooting RAW-L (lossless compressed large RAW) instead of uncompressed RAW now. The lossless compression algorithm is like ZIP - you get back every bit that went into the file, exactly the same. So you only use about 60% of the card space and disk space, but you have the confidence that you have every single bit that your camera captured.

Then again, maybe you were using an A7RIV back when you made this post - the A7RV only arrived November/December The A7RIV doesn't support lossless compression.

I’m not sure I understand RAW-L. Is the RAW file actually compressed (like a zip file) and so needs to be (automatically) uncompressed when processed in Lr or Ps? If so, does this incur a time delay while being uncompressed?

 

[evacguy]

I’m not sure I understand RAW-L. Is the RAW file actually compressed (like a zip file) and so needs to be (automatically) uncompressed when processed in Lr or Ps? If so, does this incur a time delay while being uncompressed?

Or is the RAW-L just a more efficient file architecture so all the RAW info that would be in a standard RAW file is still there, just stored more efficiently?

 

[AlphaWorld]

Or is the RAW-L just a more efficient file architecture so all the RAW info that would be in a standard RAW file is still there, just stored more efficiently?

No, the data is compressed, but Lightroom, Photoshop, and most of the other players know how to decompress it. Lots of RAW file formats are lossless compressed. You won’t notice a delay, because even though LightRoom is decompressing the data, the file is smaller, so Lightroom does not have to read as much data from the disk.

The bulk of a RAW file is data read from the sensor, basically 2 bytes per pixel well, with those two bytes holding a 14 bit value. An uncompressed RAW uses 2 bytes per value, and there are a few more values than there are pixels, because the Bayer de-mosaic process requires extra values around the edges. That’s why an uncompressed RAW is a bit bigger than 2 x the pixel count.

I guess you could save 1/8 of the file size by packing 8 pixel values into 7 x 2 byte blocks (because they are 14 bits, not 16 bits), but shrinking file size by more that 1/8 requires a compression algorithm which exploits the non-randomness of the data. So that’s why “a more efficient file architecture would not save you enough.

But all the data is there - it’s just compressed using a lossless algorithm (Like ZIP), unlike the original lossy compression, which is like JPEG - it makes the files smaller, but can lose details, and you cannot get the original data back (unless the original data is bland, not featuring any sharp edges of high contrast).

 

[evacguy]

No, the data is compressed, but Lightroom, Photoshop, and most of the other players know how to decompress it. Lots of RAW file formats are lossless compressed. You won’t notice a delay, because even though LightRoom is decompressing the data, the file is smaller, so Lightroom does not have to read as much data from the disk.

The bulk of a RAW file is data read from the sensor, basically 2 bytes per pixel well, with those two bytes holding a 14 bit value. An uncompressed RAW uses 2 bytes per value, and there are a few more values than there are pixels, because the Bayer de-mosaic process requires extra values around the edges. That’s why an uncompressed RAW is a bit bigger than 2 x the pixel count.

I guess you could save 1/8 of the file size by packing 8 pixel values into 7 x 2 byte blocks (because they are 14 bits, not 16 bits), but shrinking file size by more that 1/8 requires a compression algorithm which exploits the non-randomness of the data. So that’s why “a more efficient file architecture would not save you enough.

But all the data is there - it’s just compressed using a lossless algorithm (Like ZIP), unlike the original lossy compression, which is like JPEG - it makes the files smaller, but can lose details, and you cannot get the original data back (unless the original data is bland, not featuring any sharp edges of high contrast).

Thanks for the clarification Tony. I guess I should start using RAW-L, I believe the A7iv got this option in the second last update?

 

[-ST-]

Thanks for the clarification Tony. I guess I should start using RAW-L, I believe the A7iv got this option in the second last update?

Hi, Ed.
I'm using Lossless Compressed RAW L with my A7 IV and Capture One.
Try a couple of throwaway shots to test that you can open the files in whatever software you use for post-processing.

Here's an interesting article from @Timothy Mayo

Sony A7R V File Size - AlphaShooters.com

With its 61 MP sensor the Sony a7RV has the potential to create some pretty big file sizes for your computer to process. But exactly how big are the files from the a7RV?

www.alphashooters.com

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

No, the data is compressed, but Lightroom, Photoshop, and most of the other players know how to decompress it. Lots of RAW file formats are lossless compressed. You won’t notice a delay, because even though LightRoom is decompressing the data, the file is smaller, so Lightroom does not have to read as much data from the disk.

The bulk of a RAW file is data read from the sensor, basically 2 bytes per pixel well, with those two bytes holding a 14 bit value. An uncompressed RAW uses 2 bytes per value, and there are a few more values than there are pixels, because the Bayer de-mosaic process requires extra values around the edges. That’s why an uncompressed RAW is a bit bigger than 2 x the pixel count.

I guess you could save 1/8 of the file size by packing 8 pixel values into 7 x 2 byte blocks (because they are 14 bits, not 16 bits), but shrinking file size by more that 1/8 requires a compression algorithm which exploits the non-randomness of the data. So that’s why “a more efficient file architecture would not save you enough.

But all the data is there - it’s just compressed using a lossless algorithm (Like ZIP), unlike the original lossy compression, which is like JPEG - it makes the files smaller, but can lose details, and you cannot get the original data back (unless the original data is bland, not featuring any sharp edges of high contrast).

QED...and so the lesson endeth ! - very informative Tony, thanks

 

[AlphaWorld]

Thanks for the clarification Tony. I guess I should start using RAW-L, I believe the A7iv got this option in the second last update?

There is mention that firmware update 1.1 supported RAW-S, RAW-M, and RAW-L.

Support for the reduced resolution RAW formats was added to the A1 in a firmware update. The A1 had lossless compressed RAW from the start, but the reduced resolution format were added later. I thought they were added to the A1 after they appeared in the A7IV - I might be wrong about that.